AMD's Newest Licensee Is Officially Apple!
- Thread starter kendall
- Start date
Inline_guy
Dockboy
Interesting, but I see things a little different, and maybe that is because I am a recent switcher and not an old school Apple user. I have been a PC user my whole life. Even while in Art School, when I was forced to use the candy colored iMac, I did not enjoy them. Flash to today when I needed a new mp3 player and went looking. I decided to stop at a mac reseller to see the iPod, and find out if I could use it for Windows. Sure enough when I was there I played with a new iMac. And I was like what is this? This is not the mac OS. Then they gave me the whole deal. OS X.1
Unix
Auqa
. Blah
Blah. You know what. I have never loved computing so much. In fact I quit Art School (Computer Animation) for several reasons none the least being I hated COMPUTERS.
So I guess my feeling is this.
SYLLABICATION : in·no·va·tion
NOUN:1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced.
OTHER FORMS : in'no·va_tion·al ADJECTIVE
They did that for me. They introduced the concept that a computer could be not only useable, but productive. It could be fun. It could be easy and powerful. Maybe it is not innovation in the strictest senses. But it was to me. The act of introducing something new. And I am frankly taken back by what Mac users are like. They are whinny little babies. I am so pleased with what I have. And while my processor may or may not be the fastest in the world, I dont really care. It gets the job done, and gets it done well. Plus I dont have the typical male infatuation with big and fast. Deal with it guys. It does not make up for other short comings.
And I am glad Steve Jobs is not a business man like Bill Gates. I think it would be better not to play the game then play it so dirty.
As for me. I did not like the PC. So I switched. If people are unhappy with their macs switch. I dont think there will be any hard feelings. After all it is at the end of the day, still just a computer.
Matthew
So I guess my feeling is this.
SYLLABICATION : in·no·va·tion
NOUN:1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced.
OTHER FORMS : in'no·va_tion·al ADJECTIVE
They did that for me. They introduced the concept that a computer could be not only useable, but productive. It could be fun. It could be easy and powerful. Maybe it is not innovation in the strictest senses. But it was to me. The act of introducing something new. And I am frankly taken back by what Mac users are like. They are whinny little babies. I am so pleased with what I have. And while my processor may or may not be the fastest in the world, I dont really care. It gets the job done, and gets it done well. Plus I dont have the typical male infatuation with big and fast. Deal with it guys. It does not make up for other short comings.
And I am glad Steve Jobs is not a business man like Bill Gates. I think it would be better not to play the game then play it so dirty.
As for me. I did not like the PC. So I switched. If people are unhappy with their macs switch. I dont think there will be any hard feelings. After all it is at the end of the day, still just a computer.
Matthew
We do not know if MacOS will be any faster on an x86 processor.
Place all bets on the 970. It's an easier path to follow than the itanium vs AMD 64. As it is, the 32 bit x86 out there now is not Apple's answer. It's on the way out and it's time to start looking at 64. Might as well go 970.
Place all bets on the 970. It's an easier path to follow than the itanium vs AMD 64. As it is, the 32 bit x86 out there now is not Apple's answer. It's on the way out and it's time to start looking at 64. Might as well go 970.
kendall
Registered
We do know OS X would be faster on x86.
"Mac OS X uses an ABI designed for CISC processors, mostly ignoring RISC design principles."
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php
that a) only matters for Cocoa apps and not Carbon ones and b) is one third party's opinion. they don't have access to the source code of the ABI afaik. also it's only part of the equation. we don't know exactly what it would be like. all guesses are 'more or less'.
kendall
Registered
So a) it only affects Cocoa, which Apple wants everyone to start writing their apps in and b) it is one third parties opinion and that of an Apple Engineer.
"Thanks to the Macintosh Development oriented channel regulars and an anonymous Apple engineer for helping me with this article."
Anyone run OpenStep on x86 and PPC or maybe even Rhapsody? From what I've read, Rhapsody was devilishly fast on x86 compared to PPC. Could this be the reason?
"Thanks to the Macintosh Development oriented channel regulars and an anonymous Apple engineer for helping me with this article."
Anyone run OpenStep on x86 and PPC or maybe even Rhapsody? From what I've read, Rhapsody was devilishly fast on x86 compared to PPC. Could this be the reason?
I had Rhapsody DR 2 on an AMD K6/200 and a PowerMacintosh 9500 with a 604/200 processor. So they were running at the same clock speed, were comparable processors at the time. The PPC version was faster for me, although I wouldn't say it was by 100%, maybe by 50%.
But Mac OS X has added quite a few things since Rhapsody, and Aqua is - as far as I can see - heavily dependent on AltiVec and/or graphics cards.
This is where the equation isn't easily solved. If most of Aqua can be done by your nVidia or ATi card, then it doesn't really matter whether there's a G4 or an AMD processor in the box. The system will feel about the same. If AltiVec heavily improves the look & feel of the OS, then AMD might feel slower although it has more raw processing power.
Yet, as we don't have comparable data on Mac OS X on AMD (in fact some even doubt its existence), I say we just can't say, really, rather than walking out on a limb.
But Mac OS X has added quite a few things since Rhapsody, and Aqua is - as far as I can see - heavily dependent on AltiVec and/or graphics cards.
This is where the equation isn't easily solved. If most of Aqua can be done by your nVidia or ATi card, then it doesn't really matter whether there's a G4 or an AMD processor in the box. The system will feel about the same. If AltiVec heavily improves the look & feel of the OS, then AMD might feel slower although it has more raw processing power.
Yet, as we don't have comparable data on Mac OS X on AMD (in fact some even doubt its existence), I say we just can't say, really, rather than walking out on a limb.
Motorola. Not IBM. Motorola has agreements with AMD. They've developed some things together. Not that I think it will happen, just that it _could_. I also don't see IBM licensing patents to AMD, but I do see that Motorola doesn't care THAT much about the PowerPC desktop business. But it might be interesting for AMD. A fresh new player in the PPC business would be welcome by Apple, as both IBM and Motorola have let Apple down in the past. Apple was clearly a fan of AltiVec from the very beginning. IBM said 'no, Apple!' and that pissed Apple off, so they preferred Motorola. And then Motorola let Apple down. They were not able to scale the G4 for over a year.
Now that IBM presents the PPC 970, Apple might just say: "Know what? Make Linux machines with that. We're going AMD." (If AMD is offering any such thing to Apple. Which is not TOTALLY off the boat, because Apple would be a large enough customer.)
And to Motorola, Apple would say: "We've had it. The alliance between IBM, you and us didn't work out as expected. Please accept that we're going AMD now."
But again, I don't say it's happening or will happen. I just say it COULD.
What I guess and think is that Apple is staying with Motorola for another two years. The PPC 7457 looks promising, the 7457-RM even more so. Without having to leave the G4's path, scalability finally arrives. Apple has shown that it can build computers that are more than its processors frequency. And if Motorola is recovering from all this, it will be a good partner again.
Apple likes options. And they WILL have options. They CAN abandon the AIM-Alliance by going AMD. And AMD would be happy to cover Apple's needs, as Apple's a partner that sticks to its partners (see Motorola) and has built a large awareness in the market. As much as AMD wants Dell or Sony to use their processors, they would want Apple to use them. There will be the IBM PPC 970, which IBM will surely be glad to sell Apple (in order to replace the G4 finally). And there will be Motorola's next generation G4 processors.
January 2003 will show updated G4s with 7457 processors at up to 1.6 GHz. And we'll see 1.83 GHz processors in August/September. Whether they'll be IBM's PPC 970 and 64bit or Motorola's 7457. And Apple will be competitive, because at the same time, they'll show the world what a notebook ought to be (like they did with the TiBook and iBook) and what an operating system can do.
kendall
Registered
As if this is anything new. Apple has blatently disregarded the needs of its customers for years now.
Case in point, DDR memory. It does nothing for the new PowerMacs yet Apple sells people on the idea as if it does.
Another case in point, the G3. It should be at higher speeds than the G4 with a higher bus speeds as well yet Apple is afraid to release a 1.5GHz G3 with 200MHz system bus system.
Apple will never bite the bullet on its mistakes. Instead, it'll make us suffer and endure them, never fixing the problem, just working around it.
Case in point, DDR memory. It does nothing for the new PowerMacs yet Apple sells people on the idea as if it does.
Another case in point, the G3. It should be at higher speeds than the G4 with a higher bus speeds as well yet Apple is afraid to release a 1.5GHz G3 with 200MHz system bus system.
Apple will never bite the bullet on its mistakes. Instead, it'll make us suffer and endure them, never fixing the problem, just working around it.
TommyWillB
Registered
I don't really know what I'm talking about, but...
Would the switch to any 64bit chip be a massive change equal to the switch to the PowerPc chips?... i.e. wouldn't it require a lot of work on Apple's part to make it work?
The reason I ask the question this way is that they did this seamlessly last time... So my brain says they don't have to be locked into either the PPC or x86 architectures when choosing a new 64 bit chipset...
I would not be surprised if Apple was working on some sort of PPC / x86 hybrid for their 64 platform (think Caruso [sp?])... Heck, they may even surprise us with something completely new...
Would the switch to any 64bit chip be a massive change equal to the switch to the PowerPc chips?... i.e. wouldn't it require a lot of work on Apple's part to make it work?
The reason I ask the question this way is that they did this seamlessly last time... So my brain says they don't have to be locked into either the PPC or x86 architectures when choosing a new 64 bit chipset...
I would not be surprised if Apple was working on some sort of PPC / x86 hybrid for their 64 platform (think Caruso [sp?])... Heck, they may even surprise us with something completely new...
Originally posted by StarScream
I personaly believe that AMD is going to make PPC processors, i dont know what is going to happen with motorola and IBM maybe a alience ? withe these three companies ? i dont know. But it doesnt make sence that apple is going to drop their PPC structure. PPC is Apple ... Sorry about the post aboveno hard feelings.
You personally believe this? Do you have something that can actually back this up? Your personal belief doesn't mean anything (don't take that personally) unless you happen to be a head honcho over at AMD. AMD has always made x86 processors...even RISC x86 processors. AMD had an entire line of RISC x86 processors years ago. All their processors since then including the new 64-bit ones have many RISC attributes in their design. RISC can exist in either architecture, it is not tied to PPC. PPC is not Apple. Apple has switched platforms before, doesn't anyone realize this? They just happened to be produced by tthe same company but they ARE different platforms. Yes, I'm talking about 68k and PPC.
Excuse the lateness of my reply to this.
AltiVec is no more than a vector processing unit, something AMD could easily add to their own chips for Apple...so we would be looking at no loss here at all, the only real difference would come in the processor. This is one of the many reasons I think a switch could be very beneficial... We'd have a higher powered processor running with an AltiVec compatable vector processoing unit (the only think that keeps the G4 somewhat close to PC's in bechmarks anyways) with the same powerful graphics cards...OS X would fly...
sheepguy42
AFOL
This is true- the latest (though not that recent now) release of info on IBM's next PowerPC processor, though 64bit and with major changes, has a vector unit which supposedly is compatible w/ AltiVec. However, Apple has invested too much into promoting true RISC processors and the PowerPC, and denouncing the MHZ myth, to go with anything else any time soon. As for switching to an x86-based design, I agree w/ AppleTurns.com in that that will happen when Moto & IBM both fall into a deep, dark hole.
In the enterprise market, the leaders are companies like IBM (RISC chips like the Power4, the PowerPC 604, and in the future the PowerPC 970 and Power5), Sun (SPARC CPUs) or HP (also with RISC CPUs). X86 is rather the standard for PC gaming but not the enterprise market.
What Apple has to do if they want to heavily enter the enterprise market is to learn to provide high end business solutions. And they're on the verge of entering it. Reread the articles that were written at the time Xserve was introduced. How Steve Jobs talked about entering the market humbly.
They've entered it at 4th place, btw.